When nightmare master John Carpenter made Halloween, his second feature film, back in 1978, he certainly never imagined that it would become one of the most influential films of all time. With a minimal budget (300,000 dollars it was), an unknown cast, a very short shooting schedule, but with abundant talent and enthusiasm, John Carpenter totally revolutionized the horror genre and turned his very own and personal invention into a praised cult object. He proved that with very little money and lots of confidence, great things could be done.

Apart from becoming the most successful independent film of that decade, it was the film that influenced and inspired many directors to create their own horror movies and just follow the trend. Halloween was the one, the only, the classic that started it all; movies such as Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday 13th, Child?s Play and Scream simply followed the concept which this film suggested and went on to become successful horror franchises in their own right. It even spawned seven sequels (an eighth one may be on the works), but lamentably they were all clearly inferior and failed to be as good as the original. Halloween is a movie that has been endlessly copied, ripped off, done homage to, cited, quoted, referenced and imitated in such a way that it?s become unbearable. Every musical note, every theme, every plot point, every rule the movie?s set and every scare it?s given has since then been seen somehow, someway, somewhere. Scenes that are seen in the film may remind viewers of scenes they may have seen in more modern horror films, and it is because of this evidence that all the things Halloween showed have now been turned into a clich?, which definitely proves that it has been very influential.

To sum it all up, what Halloween did was to build its own sand castle; and from then on all its shameless successors and imitators merely had to do was to provide their own small amounts of sand.

The film commences on Halloween night with 6-year-old Michael Meyers brutally murdering his elder sister with a kitchen knife and his parents finding out. As a result, he?s then sent to an institution for the criminally insane where hopefully he will recover. Some years later, when Michael has grown into an adult he escapes from the institution and drives to the small town of Haddonfield. There, he begins stalking a group of three babysitters, and the first one to see him is Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis in her first major role), who thinks she?s hallucinating. Meanwhile, doctor Sam Loomis (note the subtle homage to Psycho), who has been studying Michael as a patient for years, goes on a search determined to find him whilst inevitably the killing spree begins.

The thing that makes Halloween so special, the mere thing that makes it so immortal is its ability to scare the living hell out of its audience. What it skillfully does is malevolently play with our doubts and fears, and that?s a quality that makes it so much more real and frustrating, since it?s something that we know of. John Carpenter uses the theme of horror as a means of communication; horror is something we all feel and are constantly aware of, which is precisely what makes it universal. Therefore, the same thing affects us all, when we see the murderer approaching the victim, we let out a wail of terror, when the door suddenly creaks open, we scream, and since he?s conscientious of all of it, Carpenter doesn?t let moments like these escape out of his hand. Halloween also uses old themes such as the interminable eternity of evil or the murderer on the run and includes them in the story to make it even more interesting to great effect.

It isn?t until the third act of the film that the director shows the murderer fully exposed, and by doing this, he masterfully builds a fine web of suspense before we see him, gradually creating an unsettling atmosphere for both the main characters in the movie and for us, the audience. Prior to this moment of the film, when we see Meyers we always see him hidden behind something, and his white mask, for instance, is never shown in a close-up until the already mentioned moment occurs. This proves to be extremely effective because we, just like the main characters, are kept wondering what he looks like and what his actions will be next. For most of the movie, Carpenter works on the building of the tension, but not on the release of it. Many times we observe Meyers following people from his point of view, while they?re no even aware that it?s happening. We hear him breathing under his mask, we follow his every movement, and we feel his presence, yet it?s hard to determine who he really is. Throughout the movie the tension is astoundingly kept, which is what makes the appearance of the murderer or a killing even more terrifying.

As for the movie itself, it?s excellent. The acting, thought slightly amateurish, is convincing and adequate for a movie like this. Jamie Lee Curtis delivers a strong performance as the ever-doubting Laurie and, just so you know, she started to be known as the ?Scream Queen? by horror geeks as she later appeared in lesser horror efforts such as Prom Night or Terror Train from then on. Donald Pleasance, however, is top notch. The characters are all well developed to a point that we know what their concerns are and when they get killed we do actually mind, (well sort of, anyway). One of the things that most struck me when I saw the movie for then first time was the eerie score, which was composed and conducted by Carpenter himself. Suiting the mood of the film perfectly, it gives the film a very uneasy atmosphere, and for a horror film that?s just what you need. The pace is slow and delicate, even for a horror film, but this is not a weakness whatsoever, as it makes the anticipation for something to happen very overwhelming. Every night shot has a blue tone to it, which is one of the most startling things about Dean Cundey?s great cinematography. Also, the use of the point of view shot is used to unbelievable effect here, as we can see the murderer?s intentions from right behind his mask. The lack of blood and gore is one of the most vital things in the film. By not making abusive use of it, Carpenter however tries to work on complex scares that put the audience on the edge of their seats instead of using disturbing images for simple shock effect. It is surprisingly bloodless, and that?s why it concentrates more on the story than on the gore to great effect.Halloween is a stylistic, extremely well crafted and genuinely terrifying film.

At the end of the day, Halloween works on two levels. One, it is one of the most effective and horrifying films ever made. Two, it was a film that did so many things for the horror genre that if it hadn?t been released, horror films wouldn?t be the same now. Overall, Carpenter created one of the scariest and most spine-tingling films that has managed to pass the test of time, a film for the ages that is essential viewing for any horror buff. And isn't that what we watch movies for? To excite us, to shock us, to make us laugh, to scare us? Let me just say that this picture does it sublimely.

So, rate, discuss, share your thoughts on the film and let's establish a nice and peaceful conversation, shall we?

By the way, I know I should have done this next Friday but I simply could not wait. And while you're at it, mention at least one director whom you would like to see make a horror movie. My pick: Darren Aronofsky.

Good review, TM, although I?m not sure I agree that A Nightmare on Elm Street (or Child?s Play, for that matter) was influenced all that much by Halloween. Wes Craven?s impetus for Elm Street was twofold: an encounter with a very scary man when he was a child, and, later, a series of articles in the newspaper about an immigrant family from Vietnam -- I think -- whose children were convinced something was pursuing them in their dreams, and eventually all died off mysteriously in the night. It was discovered that the last one to go had hidden a coffee maker in his closet. Honestly, I think Elm Street would have existed pretty much just the way it is without Halloween.

Also, I notice many younger viewers comment on the supposed weakness of the acting, but, really, this is an accurate portrayal of teenager mannerisms in 1978; I knew people just like this.

I?d also like to add that, for me, one of the things that makes Halloween so effective is its wicked sense of humor. The irony of scene in which one of Tommy Doyle?s tormentors, after terrorizing him with a chant about the boogeyman, runs straight into the Shape is darkly satisfying. And Loomis?s own fright at the hands (literally) of Sheriff Brackett after scaring off Lonnie and the gang from the Myers house is priceless.

And Halloween has one of my all-time favorite endings. Some think it was meant to leave the door open for sequels, but I strongly disagree, considering sequels weren?t quite as implicit back then as they are now, and also because Halloween II wasn?t released until three or four years later, well into the slasher movie craze. (Incidentally, I don?t consider Halloween ?the first? slasher movie, as many do, or a slasher movie at all, for that matter. That dubious distinction goes to Friday the 13th.)

I will confess I like both Halloween II and Halloween III (the ?un-Halloween) quite a bit. Halloween II goes the way of the other slashers of the time by loading more grue and sex into the mix, cheapening the movie. Still, I like the setting, and gliding camera delivers the sense of many events in simultaneous motion. And I love Halloween III for its shear imagination. Sure, it?s pretty goofy, but it?s original, and for me that counts for quite a bit.

Directors I?d like to see tackle horror? Dang, I think most of them are dead. Joel and Ethan Coen, maybe; they?ve come pretty close to horror in the past -- specifically Blood Simple and Barton Fink. Quentin Tarantino. Aronofsky?s a good choice._________________"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

Good review, TM, although I?m not sure I agree that A Nightmare on Elm Street (or Child?s Play, for that matter) was influenced all that much by Halloween. Wes Craven?s impetus for Elm Street was twofold: an encounter with a very scary man when he was a child, and, later, a series of articles in the newspaper about an immigrant family from Vietnam -- I think -- whose children were convinced something was pursuing them in their dreams, and eventually all died off mysteriously in the night. It was discovered that the last one to go had hidden a coffee maker in his closet. Honestly, I think Elm Street would have existed pretty much just the way it is without Halloween.

Yes, of course those two pictures could've existed without Halloween, but I'm pretty certain that they would not have been the same without it. They were evidently influenced by it and followed what it generated; the slasher genre.One has to bear in mind that Halloween probably would never have been made if Psycho and Black Christmas didn't exist. Although Child's Play may not look like Halloween by any means, it still follows the same path. And yes, those things you said about Craven's invention of A Nightmare on Elm Streetare both true; and, did you know that he obtained the name "Freddy Krueger" from a past bully while he was in junior school?

Quote:

Also, I notice many younger viewers comment on the supposed weakness of the acting, but, really, this is an accurate portrayal of teenager mannerisms in 1978; I knew people just like this.

No, I didn't call it "weak", I just said that it was a bit "amateurish" (consider that this was Jamie Lee Curtis's first feature lenght movie, so it comes as no surprise). I meant it was good and more than suitable for a movie like this, but it just wasn't stellar (nor was it meant to be).

Quote:

I?d also like to add that, for me, one of the things that makes Halloween so effective is its wicked sense of humor. The irony of scene in which one of Tommy Doyle?s tormentors, after terrorizing him with a chant about the boogeyman, runs straight into the Shape is darkly satisfying. And Loomis?s own fright at the hands (literally) of Sheriff Brackett after scaring off Lonnie and the gang from the Myers house is priceless.

Very good point. This is often overlooked by the vast majority of the viewers, you know (not excluding me, of course).

Quote:

Aronofsky?s a good choice.

Yup. It is clearly obvious that he's got a touch for unsettling, cold atmospheres. That's why I mainly consider Pi to be a horror movie. Oh, and I haven't seen any of the Halloween sequels (nor do I plan to, for that matter).

They were evidently influenced by it and followed what it generated; the slasher genre.One has to bear in mind that Halloween probably would never have been made if Psycho and Black Christmas didn't exist. Although Child's Play may not look like Halloween by any means, it still follows the same path. And yes, those things you said about Craven's invention of A Nightmare on Elm Streetare both true; and, did you know that he obtained the name "Freddy Krueger" from a past bully while he was in junior school?

Yeah, I knew about the bully. I do similar things in my fiction; better than therapy, I say.

Anyway, movies are indeed influenced by movies that came before them -- I wasn't denying that -- but I think, as you mentioned, Psycho and Black Christmas, not to mention Italian gialli had more direct influences on Halloween than Halloween had on Elm Street and Child's Play. Friday the 13th is absolutely dependant on the success of Halloween, although it's curious that two years elapsed between those two.

The Third M?n wrote:

No, I didn't call it "weak", I just said that it was a bit "amateurish" [...]

Well, that's six of one, half a dozen of another, isn't it? But if you mean it's obvious that Curtis is still developing her acting chops, I agree. Still, I think it's a very good performance overall, with the exception of the "The keys! The keys!" delivery that still makes me cringe to this day.

The Third M?n wrote:

Oh, and I haven't seen any of the Halloween sequels (nor do I plan to, for that matter).

Hmm. It seems a little disingenuous to comment that "lamentably [the sequels] were all clearly inferior and failed to be as good as the original" if you haven't actually seen them. I understand how you wouldn't want to taint your appreciation of Halloween with lesser sequels, but I'd still recommend Halloween III: Season of the Witch since it doesn't include Michael Myers or continue the storyline from the first two. In a way, it's a movie unto itself._________________"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

I will confess I like both Halloween II and Halloween III (the ?un-Halloween) quite a bit. Halloween II goes the way of the other slashers of the time by loading more grue and sex into the mix, cheapening the movie. Still, I like the setting, and gliding camera delivers the sense of many events in simultaneous motion. And I love Halloween III for its shear imagination. Sure, it?s pretty goofy, but it?s original, and for me that counts for quite a bit.

Imagination?!?!??!?!

As in Killer Pumpkin masks?

That movie should not have been made,

at least it makes the other sequels look good.

I like Halloween 4, "THE RETURN OF MIKE MYERS"

Thank god for that._________________walking on air, up from the wheelchair,

I'd say cursed Halloween masks are a shade more imaginative than an unstoppable killer stalking horny teens, yeah._________________"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."